The election of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to the European parliament is a distressing and sad moment in British political history, a stark warning that now, more than ever, the three major parties need to address the issues they are losing to extremism. It also shows that there must be a greater responsibility from the media to provide fairer and more balanced information about the EU and politics in general, rather than endless hyperbole and bias. However if these necessities were raised by the BNP’s victories, it was cemented by the UKIP result.
For in truth, the BNP victory is not the disaster of this year’s European Elections. While the vote count for the fascist part is alarming, the party received less votes than 2004, its victory in large part due to Labour’s dismal result; in a political climate that is, frankly, any different from the dismal one we are in now, it is hard to see Griffin and Brons retaining their seats. No, what is far more concerning is that the United Kingdom Independence Party found itself, with 16.6% of the British vote, in the position of second most successful party in these elections.
It’s a question open to debate as to whether UKIP’s policies are racist; while they feel compelled to describe themselves as a “libertarian, non-racist” grouping, many have begged to say otherwise (most notably David Cameron), and they are no strangers to xenophobic comments. For now, it’s not a debate I wish to step into; as long as it’s membership isn’t restricted to caucasions and it stops short of repatriatisation for non-white British citizens, it can certainly claim to be less racist than Griffin’s group of fascists. What is clear, however, is that this is a party stooped in prejudice, and what the European election results have shown is that UKIP is the new face of acceptable intolerance.
UKIP’s central policy is to withdraw Britain from the EU while still maintaining a free-trade agreement with the rest of Europe. While the party cites the transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels as their stimulus, there is little doubt that the manifesto is largely driven by an anti-immigration stance. UKIP currently campaigns for a five-year complete freeze on immigration, arguing that mass immigration is putting too much pressure on public services and housing; not only is this a blatant and clichéd manipulation of the facts to suit its agenda, it is party of intolerance that finds the solution by denying the right to freedom of movement, rather than directing government funding into this area. Following this five year period, UKIP will enforce a vigorously controlled point system, whereby immigrants must “be fluent in English, have the required educational qualifications, demonstrate loyalty to the UK, its laws and values, and can support themselves financially, with no recourse to public funds – and this to apply equally to their dependents.” UKIP can hide behind economic reasons as much as it likes, with requirements so intrinsically linked with British identity, they demonstrate an underlying distaste for diversity and multi-culturalism. Their ‘No Home No Visa’ scheme, providing work permits only to those who have secured work and accommodation prior to entry and are financially independent (something current British citizens need not be) and their plan to “register and track” all non-UK arrivals will undoubtedly create a culture of superiority and hostility towards immigrants in the future, in which the cost of moving to the UK comes at the heavy cost of civil rights, and the forced abandonment of any other “non-British” values at border control.
Beyond the official policy lies an even more troubling side to anti-immigration. UKIP says that current asylum laws will remain as they are, but it’s not difficult to see that this is a line pushed more for gaining votes than broadcasting opinion. Dianne Carr, former UKIP member, has said that “the EU is turning England into individual regions and bringing in asylum seekers and alien people,” and Andrew Moffatt, the UKIP parliamentary candidate in 2001, argued for a “complete halt to all asylum seekers”. If this seems like the viewpoint of candidates past, it is not; current UKIP MEP Michael Nattrass has also stated, “I’m not interested in sensitivities [on immigration issues], I’m interested in being British,” a firm indication of the motivation behind UKIP’s anti-immigration stance.
Finally, UKIP have showed themselves to be dangerous opponents of both the Human Rights act, and the European Convention on Human Rights. They argue that criminals and their victims are not “moral equals” and should not be given the same treatment. Aside from the fact that neither the HRA or the ECHR claim any such thing, this will inevitably lead to the gradual dehumanization of criminals in this country, and fail to engage with the reasons for crime. UKIP’s policies include stricter sentencing, corporate punishment in schools (presumably to ‘tackle crime early), the ability to stop-and-search on suspicion alone (interestingly UKIP opposes ID cards as an infringement of civil liberties, so it’s little wonder who UKIP believes will be the victim of these searches, and more importantly whose rights it is concerned with), and prisons in which the inmates are allowed no physical contact, effectively making their incarceration a form of torture. While the presence of crime is ever troubling, it is vital that we do not fall back on policies that further marginalize those likely to fall into a life of crime, and do what we can to offer a way out. If nothing else, we should avoid the barbarity of a penalty system built upon the needless abolition of basic rights.
It is undoubtedly true that UKIP’s vote count was gained from its euro-scepticism; in a population fearful of the de-localisation of power, UKIP portrayed itself as the party that offered the most credible solution. As a result of this, and generally being a one-policy party, it’s certain that UKIP’s success won’t be repeated in a General Election; but no solace should be taken from this. The worry is not just that UKIP received such a large result; rather, it is that while the BNP is continually stigmatized, UKIP’s vote count was barely criticised, revealing a face of intolerance that is becoming ever more acceptable in this country.
(Article originally written circa 9th June)
Very good points well made. People appear to be blasé about the ascent of UKIP which shocks me. It is no wonder they promise to maintain current asylum rules seeing as the Home Office has become stricter and stricter when it comes to asylum. What is extremely worrying is that the government try to address the rise in extremist politics by pandering to the far right through policy announcements like allowing local people to get council housing first (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/30/social-housing-bnp-migrants).
ReplyDeleteInterestingly an article in today's Observer showed that this policy could be illegal and more importantly that it is not local people or Brits who are discriminated against in getting state-funded housing as the BNP claim, but ethnic minorities (surprise surprise).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/05/labour-brown-local-homes-illegal
An interesting analysis, but slightly off the mark if I may say.
ReplyDeleteWhile we have undoubtedly had some members and candidates with more undesirable views, many have since left as the party has started to mature, especially with Nigel Farage as leader. I.e. we are not the party they thought we were.
And while no doubt there are still some members with more extreme views on immigration and other things, it is by no means representative.
UKIP has some growing up to do. It is coming out the other side of its painful teenage years and is trying to become a true classical liberal party that is both economically and socially liberal. There are many members, not least those at the top and the younger members, of which I am one, who are making this happen.
Needless to say that UKIP's immigration policy is slightly more nuanced than you portray, but you nevertheless make a fair point. While the policy is hard-line, the motivation and thought behind it does strike at the very root of tensions, which the 'big 3' parties do not. It is irresponsible of the big 3 to let tensions boil over and create an environment where the true extremists like Griffin can grow.
UKIP has always used the somewhat crude phrase "space not race" when talking about immigration. As a party we genuinely have no hatred of 'foreigners', unlike the BNP. At least 3 of our MEPs have 'foreign' wives. However that phrase masks the true issue it addresses. The real issue is one of pace of immigration, and the ability of communities to assimilate them (which we as a country have been brilliant at throughout our history), and the ability of public funds, etc, to adapt and cope with changing demands. Neither can cope with large numbers in a short space of time.
We have always asked the rhetorical question whether you hear people complaining about being swamped by French immigrants. The answer is no, despite the fact we have open borders and we have a large French community. The reason is that there has been no mass migration, which occurred after 3004 due to open borders with vastly poorer countries.
Now, it is difficult to put forward any kind of view on immigration and have a serious debate, because of immediate accusations of racism or xenophobia. But without that debate it is impossible to convey the detail and reasoning behind policies. So I find your analysis fair, for an outsider looking in, but slightly off the mark from an insider looking out.
I agree that debates about immigration often tend towards accusations of racism and xenophobia; as I said, whether UKIP is indeed a racist party is not a matter of concern for the article.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that UKIP has made significant attempts to rid itself of a xenophobic image, and to establish itself as a party beyond a single Euro-sceptic policy. However I would be rather hesitant to cite Nigel Farage as the face of an more liberal UKIP, at least unless you are sure he did not utter the words "we will never win the nigger vote" as was said by former party member Dr Sked. No doubt you will disagree that UKIP's move away from open xenophobia parallels the move made by BNP in the nineties in an attempt to gain more votes, but I still regard UKIP's proposed immigration point system as one that breeds an attitude in which one is only welcome in this country if they are deemed 'British' enough, thereby displaying a certain animosity towards other cultures. The idea that all immigrants should be traceable is one that troubles me too; settlement should not come at the cost of civil liberties, which is why it is hypocritical of UKIP to oppose ID cards on these grounds. (I should say, I oppose the current government's enforcement of ID cards onto all new immigrants)
My analysis of UKIP's immigration policies is sourced straight from their own manifesto. The point that UKIP have a genuine hatred for foreigners is neither here nor there; the BNP will argue the same thing, claiming to respect non-white genetic lines as much as white ones, and merely claiming the two should not destroy each other. Furthermore, as you admit, some members are likely to be racist, some not.
The argument is, as you say, that the current rate of immigration is unsustainable. This I believe to be false. Yes, there is a shortage of council houses in this country, and a shortage of jobs. However, these are problems that affect British people far less than they do immigrants (check any figure for council house allotments according to nationality). This is a problem that can be fixed by a government that will address our housing market and create more social housing, and by putting money into public services, avoiding spending cuts; it is not a problem that can only be fixed by a five year freeze on immigration.
Ceasing immigration is no doubt one solution to the problems people face in this country. However, it is not the only solution as UKIP will have you believe. Nor is it the solution that ultimately leads to a just and equal society.
Also I would like to add that rather than being a classically liberal party in their worldview, UKIP show signs of being realist (in terms of international relations theory) in their focus on the nation state as primary level of analysis, rather than the individual. Furthermore its only concern is us, the citizens of the UK and what is foremost in our interest despite us having a much greater advantage economically, militarily etc. over much of the rest of the world. It does not weigh up the net benefits and disadvantages of immigration, only its effect on the British citizens (and therefore race does play a part). Countries such as India have wholly inadequate public services (except for the railways!) but plenty of space - it is poor infrastructure and funding rather than population density that is the issue that must be dealt with.
ReplyDelete